|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - click_click
2701
« on: October 05, 2009, 13:34 »
Well I hope that nobody who has had their images stolen can afford a decent lawyer, or there goes any chance of an increase in royalties from SS for a long time.
Letting somebody like that back on, rather than taking proper remedial action is just inviting potential litigants to sue you. Lets not mention the liability from clients who download images in good faith - a host of disclaimers in your supply agreements won't absolve you from an action for negligence in many jurisdictions.
This sort of thing just shouldn't be the sort of thing that sites forgive - the potential for liability is just too large. I'm often amazed by how little regard some established companies have for basic risk management. The best time to hire a lawyer is when you're setting up systems to avoid risk - not when you've already got a problem.... its much cheaper that way!
Well said, but... WELCOME TO THE WORLD OF MICROSTOCK I've seen it too many times happen that thieves get their payouts (up to the point when they are exposed) and then either get warned or kicked out (creating a new fake account). In most cases they don't reside in the same country like the agency so legal actions ARE NOT taken. Even if they live in the same country it is wayyyy too expensive to hire a lawyer. Mostly the damages per agency are in the lower thousands which makes it not even worth pursuing those numb nuts.
2702
« on: October 05, 2009, 12:53 »
I contacted (via iStock site mail) the owner of an elephant image that fritzkocher has used in images on SS and FT with other backgrounds. This guy clearly has no shame and the number of problems indicate willful behavior not an inadvertant mistake.
Not what I had planned to do with my morning, but I'll contact anyone else I happen to notice being infringed. The more of us contacting the agencies about this the sooner they'll realize they have to do something about it.
I just sent an email to SS about the elephant... I think they will sort it out The kicker is, that SS let him come back online after being taken down for a bit. Never seen that before...
2703
« on: October 05, 2009, 12:19 »
Maybe they do, I don't know...
They don't... Otherwise I wouldn't be posting this...
2704
« on: October 05, 2009, 12:12 »
Life would be so much easier if all the agencies would take advantage of Tineye's API to check for duplicates right during the review process.
But that's just an impossible thing to ask...
2705
« on: October 05, 2009, 11:40 »
...I wonder if there are other "composites" made with copyrighted content in the portfolio...
Yes he did. I already contacted the copyright owner of the basketball which was used in some of his compositions.
2706
« on: October 05, 2009, 11:35 »
Coincidentally ever since this thread went live, the portfolio is gone at the agency in question. Here is the link to his 123RF portfolio: http://www.123rf.com/portfolio/fritzkocher/1.htmlSome stolen images are still online there... Check if yours is in there.
2707
« on: October 05, 2009, 11:10 »
Do yo mean stolen or plagiarazed?
I mean downloaded, modified in Photoshop (simple plugin change) and re-uploaded. Or downloaded and used as a part of another composition consisting out of other stolen images. With plagiarized I understand that he took someone's concept and re-shoot it himself. That is not the case here. He downloaded the images of others, modified them (slightly) and is selling them as his own. The changes are so slightly that even Tineye picked it up...
2708
« on: October 05, 2009, 10:26 »
Exactly.
What do you think would be an adequate number of stolen images in your portfolio or ripped off photographers until an agency will shut you down?
For over a week now a friend (seriously it's a friend and not me) is trying to get an agency (of the Big 6) to shut down a blatant thief who ripped off images from at least 4 other photographers.
After copies of his images were removed along with his entire portfolio he is now back online (without claimed images from my friend).
Further "research" (thank you Tineye) showed that 4 more photographers were ripped off by the same person.
Now get this:
Although the agency already started removing the other photographer's images from the culprit's portfolio he is still selling other stolen material.
Don't even think about starting with stuff like "It's up to the agency to decide if it's actually copyright infringement or just a similar image" BECAUSE:
I layered the images in Photoshop and they are 100% identical plus it also involves exclusive photographerS from an agency that shall remain nameless.
This is a significant issue for all involved.
But out of interest I just wanted to know if I'm just over reacting...
2709
« on: October 01, 2009, 19:19 »
2710
« on: September 30, 2009, 19:16 »
OK, here it goes.
The crocodile image: You are right, it is soft. A tough image to take as this happens quite fast I'd assume. You have to lock your focus on the bait and when the crocodile shoots out of the water just keep your shutter finger on the button and burst 4 to 6 frames. Make sure you have your camera absolutely tight on a tripod so you can avoid camera shake.
Exposure and colors look ok. Maybe open up your aperture down to what your lens can do. 3.5 or even lower to throw the background more out of focus that emphasizes the action.
Of course it would be perfect to get the crocodile from the side so you can see mouth opening. This would make a huge difference to the saleability of this image.
As for the others...
Don't do compositions. Find out if you want to be a designer or photographer. Not a lot of successful professionals can do both really well.
While your ideas make sense it's the execution of the work which doesn't look very professional.
Rather take the individual images like the sailing boat or the flamingo and just upload those. Of course composition would be important too for those subjects. You would have to upload your individual images so we can see if the boat or the flamingo are good enough for application.
Good luck!
2711
« on: September 30, 2009, 16:59 »
Who's getting hurt?
From a previous thread here, I got the impression that these resellers have access to all images and not just thumbs - this would be a major concern. Isn't that correct?
Maybe there are two categories of resellers, one that can simply create a virtual store redirecting to Fotolia itself, others like Pixmac which have their own site, search tools, and redistribute FT images. The latter would be my concern.
I remember vaguely that Chad from Fotolia did make a statement about that in regards to one of their distributors. I'm pretty sure that any transaction outside of Fotolia are secured by their API which means that no high-res images are released directly to their distributors. Of course it would be more than stupid if Fotolia handed their entire collection over to all their distributors HOPING that they report back all sales. I can not imagine that a company of that size would act so naive. I'm trying to dig out Chad's statement mentioned above. I hope I can find it.
2712
« on: September 30, 2009, 14:12 »
Hi All,
We don't shoot a frame till the model release is signed and a photo of the model holding the release has been taken. This is added to our archives and guarantees we will not be sued down the road. Easy to do and totally covers you. Along with a witness to the signing of the release and your safe as can be.
Best,
Jonathan
Amen, you only gotta do it right once.
2713
« on: September 30, 2009, 14:10 »
Please anyone correct me if I'm wrong but I was under the impression that anybody who has a web site can use Fotolia's API to sell Fotolia images on their web site.
Preferably it should be a site dedicated to stock images to make it worthwhile for the visitor but as far as I can see, it's totally legitimate.
Fotolia's API registers all sales and directs payouts and commissions to everybody involved.
I thought this is an interesting way of letting others do the marketing. Why not? It gives our images more exposure and we may even make an occasional sale from these sites.
Who's getting hurt?
I've also found many distributors from Fotolia that no one knew about but they all turned out to be for real. Whether it is worth for those people who run the API on their web site is a totally different story though and not my problem whatsoever.
2714
« on: September 30, 2009, 12:50 »
Enlightenment is on its way:
1. Images are watermarked - the same way like all of our images are watermarked at every agency we sell our images.
These watermarked images are free to anyone anyways. What's the big fuzz?
2. Copyright references are attached to the image and are linked to Crestock making it easy to the buyer to get a high-res version. BTW the blogger of course might not want a high-res version of your image but the point is to address READERS of the blog who might have a need for the posted images...
3. I've never heard that a commission increase is a problem. In any given job people would be happy to get a raise.
4. This is a new marketing strategy which COULD reach a lot of potential buyers. If you never try, you'll never know.
5. If you complain that 5% increase is only worth for the big guys (although they still "only" get 5% more which is the same %5 like you would get...) then work your shutter finger and become a "big guy" so you can profit from this as well...
I don't work for Crestock. I'm not making a killing at Crestock. I do sell some images there on a regular basis and I think that since this is a new strategy it should be tried out. If this had been already tested out by others and failed I would understand the widespread rejection of that idea but hey not everyone has to like it.
2715
« on: September 29, 2009, 16:35 »
... If you want to upload a perfectly useless photo, that will never sell, but it's perfect exposure, feel free. Don't expect it to make any money. ...
I would be careful with that statement as previous cases have shown that completely "useless" images could generate several thousands of dollars in royalties with a single sale. If you have been following Alamy's yearly contributor meetings they used to show some of these cases. One of them was a picture of an old water heater in the basement. A photographer took an image for insurance purposes and also uploaded it to Alamy. Some buyer purchased a license for that image paying over $2000. I think that's totally worth a try to upload technically good but so called "useless" images to Alamy...
2716
« on: September 29, 2009, 15:23 »
If you've been shooting images for some years I shouldn't have to tell you that it can be quite challenging taking photos against the sun.
I bet that if you shot the train from the other side of tracks it would have looked awesome but maybe the background could have been a problem - I don't know, but the train would have been illuminated nicely.
In the dark areas of the train (almost entire shadow side) you can see quite some noise.
There some "smudgy" spots like the number 0 in the big "604" on the side. All the letters have a black outline but the "0" looks kind of funny. I know it could be because it was like that but I see some of that smudging also on the carriage next to the wheels.
It does look a bit soft.
Furthermore you can see some slight color fringing on the handle on the roof at the front which is sticking into the sky.
Composition is not too great either. Find a more interesting angle or crop. Use the rule of thirds or show the entire engine.
The other two shots show way too much post processing errors. Way too much noise. Too much saturation. Not sharp. They all look really soft.
The plant pictures are great subjects to photograph but imagine what is it that your picture promotes?
When you compose the shot be sure that the designer can include some text in the image. In the shot with the corn crops (I'm terrible at determining plants...) move the camera up so you get a lot more sky! This gives the designer a lot of space for text etc.
You got the eye for the subjects, it's just a technical matter to get the shots right for stock!
Good luck!
2717
« on: September 25, 2009, 15:25 »
A potential partial temporary solution to the problem of people stealing images, faking MRs and any other stuff which undermines the business as a whole would be to require photographers and illustrators to hold a minimum balance on their accounts of, say, a few thousand $. Hence effectively delaying payments over a few weeks or months.
I'm sure it would also make sense to require people to nominate a proper bank account and the royalties transferred directly.
Sign me up, but I guess only a few people would go with that. Something along those lines would definitely deter those idiots who try to trick the system.
2718
« on: September 25, 2009, 14:50 »
In your situation, Anyka, I can see your point.
I think all the sites take the model release thing a little bit too far. Unrecognizable faces are unrecognizable people. I don't care if they can identify themselves by their clothing or their dog. Unless their clothes are handmade by them and their dog is the only one of it's kind in the world, there are a million other people with those same clothes and same dog.
I would say a good % of images that are submitted with unrecognizable people were taken in public places. If somebody doesn't want their clothes or their dog to be photographed, then they should stay in their house. That being said, it is still the sites' requirement and I would not jeopardize my sales by doing anything against the rules.
I AM totally with the model release requirement though if their face is showing.
Oooooh, I think you're leaning yourself bit far out of the window with this statement... To say Unrecognizable faces are unrecognizable people is flat out wrong. This is the reason why people who have tattoos, piercings, missing limbs or other visual disabilities still require a release because they can be identified. It has nothing to do with their face. Quick story (from Alamy): An image of a dog lifting its hind leg to pee on to a priest who was holding a sermon outdoors was on of these cases. The image only showed the lower part of the priest's robe and the dog. No faces, no tattoos, no tag on the dog with its name on it - NOTHING. Yet the priest won the case in court because he knew who it was and that he would have never approved this image to be used commercially. See this is the issue, it's not about people becoming paranoid in public when they are being photographed. Heck, take pictures of people outdoors all day long. But when it comes down to promoting animal testing or other "hot" topics you have to realize that some people don't want to be commercially "used". As a street photographer you have the right to display the images as you reflect the world as it is. No problem there. But you have to be careful using other peoples' bodies (LOL - without their consent) for commercial usage. It's not just because of the face!
2719
« on: September 25, 2009, 14:32 »
Well, tempted or not, it's wrong and illegal.
It could cause a lot of very big problems for the photographer, the agency and the company or person who used the image.
A lot of damage can be caused by that.
Whatever the reason is why someone would feel the need to fake a MR - it's going to jeopardize your career.
2720
« on: September 25, 2009, 14:14 »
Lisa,
you know exactly that there are people out there doing it. The same way they steal our images and re-upload them as theirs.
I must be quite naive, because I really hadn't thought about that. I can see your point though - if you steal images of people and reupload as your own obviously you would have to fake a release to have them accepted.
OTOH pretty much all the stolen images I have seen uploaded to microstock have been either vectors or photos that don't have people in them.
I will admit that I don't spend a lot of time or energy on following the progress of the thieves though. Are a lot of them uploading "model released" stuff?
I've heard that it's happening - I doubt anyone can give you numbers... But seriously when you read all the posts about what kind of images are being ripped off you wonder why would they take those images? If you rip off a best seller then it will shortly rise to the most popular list right next to the "original" once there it won't last long until someone wonders how 2 people can submit the same image. Furthermore I've seen one of my images being offered unaltered on a few agencies by no less than 3 contributors and gee they all came from Eastern European countries. Try to enforce them laws over there. Don't even bother - it's just upsetting. Once you see people do this why would you be surprised to hear that they also fake releases???
2721
« on: September 25, 2009, 13:35 »
Can't imagine why anyone would try faking a model release and risk account closure, lawsuits, or worse. It would be a really, really stupid thing to do.
If you can't get a model release then you don't have the model's permission to use their image. Simple. Legally and ethically it is just WRONG!
Lisa, you know exactly that there are people out there doing it. The same way they steal our images and re-upload them as theirs. It happened to many of us and it's absolutely no question of ethics or whether it is legal or not because the people who do this don't care about that.
2722
« on: September 25, 2009, 08:58 »
It's the same thing as stealing someone's images and re-uploading them as your own.
You will get away with it for while. Sooner or later you'll get caught.
People steal images and fake releases all the time. It's just a matter of getting caught.
The agencies will kick you out and under your name don't even bother to try it again with them.
But heck, in certain, less regulated countries copyright laws don't exist or are not enforced so people can go bonkers ripping others off without fearing consequences by the law enforcers or the agencies because chances are high that you don't live in the same country as they have their headquarters. Sad but true.
2723
« on: September 25, 2009, 08:50 »
This sounds to me like the people in the image are an important feature otherwise, so I assume, the OP would have cloned them out to begin with as blurring the faces is a long stretch.
I've seen featured images on Dreamstime's front page with blurred out faces. I won't go into detail which images they were but it shows that there are agencies that do accept that kind of altering.
I'm just not sure though how happy the customers will be...
2724
« on: September 24, 2009, 09:43 »
They were fuzzing around with the FTP server for video uploads which was supposed to be up and running by now... Shouldn't have anything to do with the HTTP end though. Maybe all the new features and benefits they recently announced caused the site to crash  But hey, it wouldn't be the first time that IS has a "little" hiccup while implementing new features...
2725
« on: September 24, 2009, 09:32 »
It's again.
site is hiccupping
Up and down
The most ironic part: off site server to provide emergency status http://www.istockscoop.com/ is down as well
Same problem here. Weird that both domains are affected.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
